Edmonds III, Radcliffe G.: Redefining Ancient Orphism. A Study in Greek Religion.

Cambridge: Cambridge UP 2013. XII, 451 S. 70

The figure of Orpheus has been a constant source of fascination, sparkling the imagination of philosophers,
artists, theologians, and laypeople alike. He has been variously presented as a dubious and possibly
menacing fringe character, an awe-inspiring cult figure enjoying a privileged relation to the gods through
his divine ancestry, one of the founders of Greek culture and the transmitter of ancient wisdom, the
inventor of religious cults, or the emblem of arts and their special relation to love. Stories about Orpheus
can condense such fundamental aspects of our existence as the immense and transformative power of
music and poetry, love that persists against all odds and defies even death, fame and marginality, secrecy
and anxieties about what we can hope for after our earthly life. His figure has offered an inexhaustible
opportunity to give expression to such elemental concerns through the entire tradition from the archaic age
to the current day.
Just as Orpheus offers the possibility to channel some of the deepest concerns of human existence,
interpretations of ancient Orphism has been the locus of intense discussions pertaining to, and having an
immediate bearing on, our understanding of the overarching characteristics of ancient Greek religion, its
relation to the polis, the existence and role of other types of communities, the co-existence of parallel and
competing narratives of about the gods, codification, fluidity and variety, writing and orality, the
relationship between religion and philosophy, ritual performativity and theological doctrines, purity and
post mortem salvation, relation to other cultures and the list could be continued. As the subtitle of
Radcliffe G. Edmonds' (henceforth E.) book already indicates, one of the guiding themes of his magisterial
work is precisely that the study of ancient Orphism always has such wider stakes and ramifications. The
conjunction of the three main parts of the book, discussing in turn three major assumed characteristics of
Orphism, presents a sustained argument for the thesis that our own presuppositions about these more
general questions, or indeed our implicit or explicit ideologies, have a major impact on our reading of
Orphism. The general thesis is of course a hermeneutical commonplace, and the case has already been
made more specifically with respect to Orphism before -- but probably never so powerfully as in E.s
provocative and inspiring work, informed by his outstanding knowledge of the source material and the
history of scholarship, as well as his great acuity, forceful arguments, and fresh take on old and new pieces
of evidence.
The constant influx of sensational new archaeological discoveries, from the Olbia bone plates,
through the Derveni papyrus, to the ever increasing number of gold tablets, has substantially enriched our
evidence about the earliest stratum of Orphism. Yet, it would be utterly naive to expect from any such new
material to offer a definitive, clear-cut solution even to the most basic vexed questions (a good reminder of
this phenomenon is the Strasbourg Empedocles papyrus). Rather, they increase the complexity of the
picture and press interpreters to integrate the new pieces of evidence in their respective overall
interpretations, to make some rearrangement in the constellation of material and to build new arguments
defending the validity of their overarching reading. The value of the new pieces of evidence comes from the
way in which they are accounted for in competing interpretative frameworks, what measure of
reconfiguration they invite, and how they find their place vis--vis what had already been known. E.s book
is a prime example of how such reassessment can be achieved at a very high level of ingenuity and
sophistication, offering a comprehensive picture in which old and new pieces of evidence find their places.
The outcome, building on and bringing together various threads of E.s previous work, is a powerful and at
places radical statement about Orphism and Greek religion, supported by a wealth of information and
vigorous arguments, offering a consistently engaging read throughout the 400 pages of the book. There is no
way I could do full justice to the richness of detail of the work. If in what follows I raise some qualms about
certain aspects of E.s interpretations, they should be understood as against the backdrop of my admiration
for this major achievement.

The first chapter of Part I immediately turns to the programme announced in the title. E. proposes
here his general definition of Orphism, and sets out the overall approach and methodology that follows
from this definition and that will be applied to particular phenomena in the subsequent parts of the work.
E.s main polemical target is any kind of essentialist conception of Orphism; instead, he argues for a much
looser connection among diverse phenomena that can be ranged under the broad umbrella of Orphism.
Just as Leonid Zhmud' has recently done with respect to Pythagoreanism, E. suggests that the relationship
can best be captured by the Wittgensteinean notion of family resemblance. Accordingly, E. offers a semiformal, 'polythetic' definition according to which the primary characteristic trait of this family is being
'extra-ordinary' one of E.s signal terms especially in terms of purity, sanctity, antiquity, strangeness or
perversion. I find myself in full agreement with E.s radically pluralistic approach. I also fully agree with him
that from the presence of certain traits in a document that we can range under Orphism, we cannot infer
that certain other traits should be present as well on the basis of the assumption that anything Orphic must
contain all those traits. I also fully agree that references to the figure of Orpheus and phenomena connected
to his name are always polemical or I would perhaps rather say, they are hardly ever value-neutral. It
seems to me however that what should and what should not be included in the list of these non-essential
but characteristic traits, or 'valid cues', is still up for grabs. From a methodological point of view, it is not
unproblematic that E. starts with his definition, and then turns to the historical review of the evidence,
which is thus already moulded by the definition; E.s nuanced and very informative discussions inevitably
focus on those traits that are included in his definition and tend to shadow those that are not. Starting with
a somewhat different list of characteristic traits could have led to highlighting different aspects of the same
historical evidence. One primary piece of contention is whether eschatological concerns should figure on
the list. E. staunchly maintains that they should not despite the evidence of Herodotus, the Olbia bone
tablets, the gold tablets or the Derveni papyrus and so forth. It seems to me that no harm would be done to
E.s overall pluralistic, anti-essentialist picture if he would be more accommodating in this respect; it could
still be true that eschatology as such, and especially a well-defined eschatological doctrine, is far from being
a necessary trait of anything Orphic, or that it would be in any way exclusive to Orphism just as 'extraordinary strangeness', one of E.'s cues, is neither a necessary trait, nor exclusive to Orphism. More lenience
towards post-mortem concerns would spare E. from such strained claims that reincarnation got connected
with Orphism on account of the 'strangeness' of this idea (p. 85), and not in view of the perceived
eschatological interest in Orphism, whereas 'differentiated afterlife is ordinary (p. 88) and therefore cannot
be linked with Orphism (had it been so 'ordinary', Plato's Socrates would not have needed so much effort to
argue for it on his last day). Similarly, there is of course no denying that the gold tablets put a great
emphasis on purity and a special relation to the divine, and as such could already belong to Orphism
according to E.'s definition on that account. Yet, all this does not prevent us from adding that they exhibit a
further 'cue' by being also eschatological in nature. Incidentally, E.'s very helpful corrective that the
importance of Demeter and Persephone in Orphic texts has been underestimated (p. 90) is a further
indication of the role of eschatological orientation.
Building on E.'s definition, the main bulk of the first part is taken up by an outstandingly
informative historical survey of the creation and shifting image of Orphism from the archaic age to the 20th
century. Once again, E.'s discussions, even of relatively well-known materials, contain a great deal of
novelty, much sophistication and ingenuity. One qualm: there seems to be some measure of unclarity about
the relationship between various presentations of the figure of Orpheus throughout ages, genres, and
systems of thought, on the one hand, and the creation of and shifts within the category of Orphism, on the
other. In fact, the major part of the chapter discusses the former question, but given that E.'s focus is
primarily on the second issue, the treatment of the former question is in some respects curiously selective.
For instance, E. comes to discuss the mythical biography of Orpheus only when he reaches the Middle Ages.
Thus Ovid and Vergil are referred to only in half a sentence in the chronological review, although their
popular and widely read presentations clearly had a more important role in the creation and crystallization
of the image of Orpheus. Indeed, classical references and allusions to Orpheus mythical biography in Greek
literary sources (e.g. Plato, Rep. 620a, Symp. 179d; Euripides, Alc. 367ff) or pictorial representations on

Apulian vases, are hardly mentioned. Moreover, in his masterly discussion of the figure of Orpheus in NeoPlatonism, E. speaks about the 'creation of systematic Orphism' (p. 40). The applicability of this term is not
unproblematic, in so far as for the Neo-Platonics, as E. fully acknowledges, Orpheus does not have his own
distinctive '-ism', but is treated as one of the founding figures of the whole of Hellenic tradition of wisdom
and theology running through Pythagoras, Plato and their followers.
The primary objective of Part II is to show that, despite the widely accepted view, a special
importance attached to written texts is not to be included in the list of 'valid cues' of the polythetic
definition of Orphism. E.'s discussion is brimming with insightful observations and legitimate and wellargued criticism. It contains a highly interesting discussion of Orphic theogonies, with a particularly
suggestive proposal about the form of the Orphic Rhapsodies, comparing it with the Sibylline Oracles. It
seems to me however that, just as with respect to eschatology, E.'s position is unduly rigid towards the use of
written texts a rigidity that in a way goes against the spirit of his commendable flexible pluralism and
non-essentialism. E. convincingly shows that the role of written texts in Orphism has often been overstated,
and moreover, that these accounts, especially in older scholarship, have been motivated by preconceptions
and outdated models of the function of sacred texts in religions. E. is also entirely right in pointing out that
the Orphic use of written texts must be understood within the wider cultural context of the rise of literacy
in the sixth and fifth centuries, and more particularly with reference to the use of written treatises in
demonstrating ones outstanding skills and expertise in the highly competitive spirit so characteristic of
Greek culture from the earliest times in any given field. E. is also persuasive in showing how in the
intellectual atmosphere of the classical age, the exegetical and etymological bravados in the interpretation
of oracles and authoritative texts, the competing cosmological theories of the natural philosophers, the
professional rivalry of the medical authors, and the linguistic theories and rhetorical exercises of the
sophists could cross-fertilize each other, and that texts connected with Orphism and references to written
Orphic texts should be understood against the background of this vibrant and diverse intellectual life. It
seems to me however that E. tends to over-emphasise the pure demonstration of rhetorical, exegetical, and
argumentative skills to the expense of content. For, surely, not always, but often enough, such skills were
used not for mere epideictic, sophistic, eristic purposes, as mere displays of rhetorical virtuosity, but had
the purpose of conveying a message and persuading the audience of the practical consequences of an
oracle, the efficacy of a treatment, or of the truth of a philosophical, cosmological or theological thesis, or a
cultic practice. It might be only a difference in emphasis, but one that can lead to a considerably different
assessment of the general nature and aims of texts like the Derveni papyrus.
Moreover, recognising the growing use of written texts across disciplines and discourses does not
mean that within the religious sphere actors broadly connected with Orphism could not be particularly
quick in adopting this medium in competing for their clientele. This could well explain why, as E. also
concedes, at least in the fifth-century Athens people like Plato and Euripides could validly connect Orphism
with the use of books, and, moreover, their presentation could have an effect on later perception of
Orphism. Once again, this would not make the use of written texts neither an essential feature, nor a
prerogative of Orphism, but would still allow that for some contemporaries the use of books was indeed a
valid cue.
The last long section of Part II discusses the content of poems and mythological narratives
connected to Orpheus. E. applies his non-essentialist commitments in his analysis particularly successfully.
He shows convincingly that these narratives show a high degree of fluidity and ability to integrate and
rearrange traditional mythical elements. Sometimes the rearrangement and the possible inclusion of
striking or outlandish elements might have served primarily rhetorical purposes, to catch attention and to
emphasize otherness. Yet this picture also leaves room for treating mythical narratives as a living language
that is able to express philosophical or theological contents by rearrangement, omission, and inclusion.
Among other important observations, E. provides in this chapter powerful arguments in order to strike a
more balanced picture of the role of narratives about Dionysus, Demeter, the Great Mother, and
Persephone, as well as poems for the sacred rites, instead of an exclusive focus on theo-cosmogonies that
have been prioritized by scholarly discussions.

Part III focuses on such texts that have been seen as central for Orphic eschatological doctrines. E.
revisits here the vexed question of the so-called Orphic anthropogony according to which humankind is
born from the ashes of the Titans who were struck by Zeus' thunderbolt as a punishment for having
dismembered and devoured the infant Dionysus. By a meticulous analysis of the sources, E. demonstrates
convincingly that although various elements of this narrative appear in various texts of different dates,
there is no single source that would contain this particular conjunction of elements together; E. plausibly
and cautiously concludes that rather than being the backbone of Orphic beliefs about the nature of human
beings, and their fate, and possibility of salvation, it is a construction of modern scholarship. E. shows, to
my mind successfully, that Olympiodorus, whose testimony includes most, although not all, of the relevant
elements, is not preserving an archaic version, but rather recombines and invents for the purposes of his
own discussion of Socrates prohibition of suicide in the Phaedo. Moreover, we don't need to rely on this
conjunction of narrative elements to ascribe the role of liberator to Dionysus or to speak about
Persephone's ancient grief. According to E., Persephones rapt is sufficient to explain the retribution
mankind has to pay in order to placate her. Building on his previously published work, but giving due
attention to objections and counter-arguments raised by Bernab and other scholars, E. provides here new
arguments and a definitive statement of his position a worthy coda to this splendid book.
E.'s monograph is a comprehensive, powerful, superbly erudite treatment of a particularly difficult
and contentious topic. It is a genuine tour de force at the highest level scholarship, inventiveness, and
interpretative acuity. An absolute must for anyone interested in any aspect of Greek religion.
Gbor Betegh
Cambridge